boricuamaximus
Ultimate Member
- Dec 27, 2008
- 6,237
Am I the only one that would have tried to reason with him? Not everyone is born Caucasian and rich.
Am I the only one that would have tried to reason with him? Not everyone is born Caucasian and rich.
Or, more people jailed for manslaughter...
Straw man argument that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. In her case, there was an active threat that could legally be disposed of.
Now, once the robbery was over, and no one was murdered or injured, if someone had chased said robber down the street and shot him in the back of the head, there would be a raft of shit coming down on that person.
Sorry if you don't like it, but them's the facts...
Then I hope you have a VERY good lawyer...
Once again, you shoot to stop the threat. The immediate threat. Not some "what if" threat that may or may not happen two weeks later.
But keep telling yourself otherwise. Keep tilting at windmills and shouting to all who will listen that you'd have no problem shooting a fleeing suspect. And the anti's will continue to use that as fodder against 2A rights...
Jamie
Play stupid games--- win stupid prizes....
Point out where I ever said I would shoot a fleeing suspect????????????
I never said it, so you can't.
At what point do we say enough is enough?? Hopefully I'm never put in a situation like that, but I'm pretty sure how I would respond.
My point is people are fed up with this shit, and if this happened more, less people would be inclined to try to pull this crap.
It is actually a good argument for the "Shall Issue" team.... If we had a legislative and judicial system that actually did something more permanent against violent repeat offenders, less people would be put in this situation.... That's my point-- that's all.... I'm sorry if you don't like my perspective... but I'm pretty sure it is shared by many here...
Then what did you mean when you said this (in response to my questioning the shooting of a fleeing suspect)?
You said that in response to my questioning the rationality of shooting a fleeing suspect.
And this?
If what happened more? Shooting a fleeing suspect?
Lest you be confused, I have ZERO problem with defending myself or my family (or innocent bystanders, if need be). However, the zeal and celebration of the apparent shooting of a fleeing suspect in the back of the head is a horse of a different color.
When anti's see that, it reinforces their misguided belief that we're all a bunch of blood thirsty lunatics, just waiting for the opportunity to open fire on someone.
If that's what winds someone's watch, I don't want to be associated with them...
What's not to like about this statement? It's quite rational. But it's not what we were talking about, is it? It's the other part I have issues with...
Jamie
Inserting myself in to that situation, I probably would have shot the scumbag.
What, is your wife away this week and you have no one to argue with?
Oxymoron alert!
No, the law says you can "defend yourself". There comes a point where it's no longer "self defense" and one becomes a vigilante...
Jamie
Even though the guy was scum, he got his wallet back and the guy wasnt a threat to him anymore, so why shoot him while he is running away? Sounds like his emotions got the best of him and he's gonna pay for it for 25-life.
You need to read up on Texas law. He would have been justified if this had happened in Texas (and I think a few other states).
That just shows that we have a ways to go to get the laws on the side of the citizen and not the criminal.
"...Jesus pursued him and shot him from behind."
(from http://wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=47308)
if only Jesus would do this more often to people who deserve it